Talk:Queen Albia of England
Nomenclature Is the recent name change of this article canonically justified? ⚙Zarchne 21:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC) :I prefer "Her Undying Majesty", as I think more people would search for that term. That's how she's referred to in the comic itself. However, I have no problem with the current title. Abstaining on this one. --mnenyver 06:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC) : It seems reasonable to me. If there was a cast list entry I would prefer to use that name. Google finds a reference to her in the cast list and not a full entry. Argadi 10:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC) :: Well, yeah. It seems the Professors prefer to refer to her formally as "Her Undying Majesty", while a character will informally refer to her as "Albia", but I don't know that "Queen Albia of England" is attested anywhere. I'd like more certainty before we start, for instance, updating links. ⚙Zarchne 18:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC) Second call: is "Queen Albia of England" attested in the canon? ⚙ Zarchne 18:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Hmph. As of Wednesday last, (not "Queen") is now attested. Until then, this wiki, copies of this wiki, and one (1) message from 2007 is almost the only place where it showed up in Google (24 hits vs 192 or so for "Her Undying Majesty"). I still think the other title would be better. ⚙Zarchne 08:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Incidentally, here's the message: he says. Oh, and uses "Her Undying Majesty Queen Albia of England". He references . ⚙Zarchne 08:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC) A herald speaks 'Her Undying Majesty' is a form of address. Queen Albia of England is her name. Therefore the way it's redirected now is appropriate and accurate. 'Majesty' may also be used for an Empress, but it's usually modified by 'Imperial' (c.f. Queen Victoria I of Great Britain). It does beg the question of whether this Britain had an equivalent of the muttergrumble Act of Union which bloody well subjugated all the Celtic-held lands officially joined the English and Scottish crowns as two titles permanently held by one person (the Welsh just got trampled). -- Corgi Relationships Hy am unsure dot the explanayshun of cuzins is correct. Hy hav cuzins many times removed und dey are about mine own age. Generashuns hexpand in parallel... Altgorl 03:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC) : Altgorl, the explanation seems right to me. I will always be some form of aunt to my brother's children, and their children, and their children, and their children. I may end up as great-great-great-great-aunt Brassi, but I will always be an aunt. : I will always be some sort of first cousin to my cousin and to her children and to their children and so forth. She and I share grandparents. Her kids are my first cousins once removed. Their children will be my first cousins twice removed. : I will always be some sort of second cousin to my second cousin and his descendents. He and I share great-grandparents. His kids are my second cousins once removed. : I'm sure I have third cousins (those who share great-great-grandparents with me), but I don't know of any personally. However, if I lived to be a thousand years old, the descendents of those unknown third cousins would still be my third cousins - the only variable is how many times removed. The number of the cousins (first, second, third) indicates how far back the common ancestors are. The number of times removed counts the generations from the starting relationship. : If my third cousin has great-grandchildren, they will be my third cousins, three times removed. My great-grandchildren and my third cousin's great-grandchildren would be 6th cousins. : Have you ever read (or watched the films of) Tolkien's Lord of the Rings? Elrond had a brother named Elros. Elrond's daughter Arwen and Elros's son Vardamir were first cousins. Aragorn was the greatgreatgreatgreat(lotsagreats)grandchild of Vardamir. That makes him a first cousin, about 60 times removed, to Arwen. Arwen is, not surprisingly, far older than Aragorn. : In contrast (and I think this is what you were referring to), a friend and I were doing a casual comparison of family trees. She recognized some of the names that I was mentioning from the 1700s or so. At a guess, she and I are probably something like 12th cousins, plus or minus a few removes. : This looks like a discussion, doesn't it? I'm putting it in the article area, since the discussion area seems to be a discussion about discussions. And really, this should probably be in the discussion area for the main article. -- Brassica 23:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC) :: Agreed. Moved. --Quadibloc 08:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC) ::: Thank you! I was pretty sure I could move the Mad article stuff if I had to, but I wasn't at all sure what to do about the discussion area. -- Brassica 17:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Placement discussion Why is a forum being listed in the category for characters? It would be better to put the link to this discussion over here Her Undying Majesty/Mad. --mnenyver 13:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC) :It was listed under and I added the categories I thought applied. Is there a problem with having a forum (or a Mad page) in a general category? Would it be a good idea to create parallel category tree(s) with entries like "Category:Forum/Characters", "Category:Mad/Characters"? What about the idea for a set of categories "Pages related to (X)" or "Pages mentioning (X)"? ⚙Zarchne 22:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC) ::I would vote to keep categories strict in content, eg. Category:Characters should only contain character entries from the main namespace. However, I love the suggestion to create an index. If you recall, I suggested something similar a while back (using tags), but couldn't come up with an elegant solution. If we can come up with a good model for an index without creating category cruft, such a tool would be extremely useful. The category structure is a little crufty as it is, imho. Edit to add: Mad pages were also intended to be a catchall place to list links like these. See Baron Klaus Wulfenbach/Mad for an example. --mnenyver 07:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC) ::: I’m not sure what’s meant by “category cruft”. I understand that a Forum: entry looks out of place in a category which contains only main namespace articles otherwise. Categories are tags, though... when you mentioned "tags" before, it seemed to be in the context of tagging pages from the comic... which we were already doing, in a sense, on the Chronology pages. However, if you allow some categories to contain forums, and in particular add category tags to those troublesome☺ per-page forums, this would be accomplished. ⚙Zarchne 03:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC) ::It would seem to me, that "Forums" should stick with "Forums" and "Mads should stick with "Mads." I'm not a fan of this Wiki-desegregation movement to put a "Forum" in a "Character" category gas it will create chaos and cause the whole tree of each line to be horribly horribly complicated (as I put this on a Tab for "Discussion" of a Mad article that is the redirected link to "Discussion" off the interloping Forum/Character page) ::for those wanting a visual breakdown "Category:Characters from England" (can't make it a link) ->'Forum:Her Undying Majesty' (take the "Discussion" tab) -> Queen Albia of England/Mad (take the "Discussion" tab) to this page... ::: Actually, you can link directly to a Category thusly: Category:Characters from England. The problem is that we do not seem to have control over the tabs — if we did, we would have added Mad tabs long ago. What we have is a number of “namespaces”: main, “User:”, “Girl Genius:”, “File:”, “MediaWiki:”, “Template:”, “Help:”, “Category:”, “Forum:”, “Video:”, and our very own ever–popular “Mad:”. Each of these has a Talk namespace (“Talk:”, “User talk:”, &c.), which is what the “Discussion” tab refers to. ⚙Zarchne 03:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC) ::I understand linking the Forum (which may or may not be more of a Mad--I'm not judging, as I'm still trying to figure out the differences) to the main article of Queen Albia of England but... to beat my dead horse... why is a Forum impersonating a Character? (deep breath) -- Axi 17:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Because I said so (Teasing) I've moved this for consistency. -- Corgi 23:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC) :Um... i really don't think that making the discussion on the placement of a forum page listed in a category for characters is Mad worthy..... and I'm putting it here instead of the new discussion page that making this discussion page a "Mad" created... talk about nesting -- Axi 16:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Boadicea With respect to the just-added comparison with Queen Boadicea, it should be noted that the latter interacted with the Roman Empire, so she came thousands of years after "before Rome, before England, before the channel." (That doesn't mean her depiction in the Well of Memory can't be a cultural reference to Boadicea, just Albia can't actually be Boadicea.) Bkharvey (talk) 07:30, December 12, 2018 (UTC) I do agree. For instance, she's wearing a white fur garment (some kind of Conan/Red Sonja/generic barbarian reference, maybe?) rather than a cloth tunic, to show that this is like an Ice Age Spark. So I do think that Albia's not literally Boadicea, Elizabeth the First or Second, or Victoria, but she seems to draw on these iconic British queens. And I don't think the reference to Rome was totally a coincidence in that context: who's to say she couldn't have taken on her old-spear wielding form to drive off Roman Sparks many years later? Soaboutthat (talk) 08:01, December 12, 2018 (UTC) Cabal against the crown "It is possible that 300 years ago Albia successfully weathered an attempt ✣ by a cabal of rebellious nobles aimed at unseating her; the description of this event refers to "the throne" of England being targeted rather than Albia specifically." Since we now know for sure that Albia was ruling England 5K years ago, can't we assert with confidence that the cabal was against her specifically? Bkharvey (talk) 07:33, December 26, 2018 (UTC)